News

Travel Fraud & Plagiarism

Just because it’s plagiarism doesn’t mean that it has to be bad writing. A travel writer for Lonely Planet, my favorite travel series, has admitted to the Sunday Telegraph that he has not been in the countries he has written about. He wrote his book on Colombia from San Francisco and has admittedly never been in that country he has also admitted to plagiarising  large sections of the book.

The Lonely Planet has fact checked his books but discovered no faults in them.

So what is the problem with a travel writer who has never been in the country? Well it is dishonest and fraudulent since the premise is that the writer is writing from personal experience. The fact that it is good writing is not the point. In fact, as most students are aware, a prerequisite for good plagiarism is good writing.

Posted on by mklang

Powerhouse Photo Collection Online

Old black and white photo’s are strangely interesting. Even the pictures which are bad become interesting given time. That’s why it is good news to read on the Creative Commons blog that the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia has become the first museum in the world to release publicly-held historical photographs for access on the Flickr: The Commons.

Powerhouse has released an initial 200 photographs from its Tyrrell Collection, and will continue to add more from this 7900+ image collection over the coming weeks. The Powerhouse Museum joins the Library of Congress in the ‘Commons’ initiative. The Library of Congress is sharing over 3,300 photos from its vast collection on the Flickr site.

Elizabeth St.

Format: Glass plate negative.
Rights Info: No known restrictions on publication.
Repository: Tyrrell Photographic Collection, Powerhouse Museum www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/collection=The_Tyrrell_Photographic
Part Of: Powerhouse Museum Collection
Persistent URL: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=28755

 

Read the Powerhouse announcement.

Posted on by mklang

Storm Trooper Property Wars

George Lucas is the man behind the Star Wars films and as such he owns the rights to them. A lesser known fact is that Andrew Ainsworth was the costume designer behind the white stormtrooper helmets. So far so good each gets his due.

But who owns the designs for the stormtrooper costumes?

The British prop designer who created their famous white helmets and body armour is being sued by director George Lucas for £10m in a case starting at the high court tomorrow. Andrew Ainsworth was sued by the director’s company, Lucasfilm, after reproducing the outfits from the original moulds and selling them for up to £1,800 each. (The Force)

This would be fun in itself but the story gets even better:

Ainsworth is countersuing Lucasfilm for a share of the £6bn merchandising revenue generated since the first film in the series premiered in 1977.

So does the filmmaker own all aspects of the film? What rights do the set, costume, prop designers have? Naturally this could (and should?) all be resolved by contract but if there is no contract?

The fact that Ainsworth makes the helmets from the original moulds should not mean anything since the right to make copies does not follow the ownership of the moulds. However in the absence of a contract to resolve this question the fact that the designer was allowed (if he was?) to keep his moulds should weigh in his favor. What a lovely case – I can’t wait to hear what the courts decide.

More on this available at TimesOnline.

Posted on by mklang

Boyle Book Cover Competition

Via an email list I found out that James Boyle, the new Chairman of the Board at Creative Commons and a founder of Science Commons, is holding a contest to design a cover for his new book, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. In the book, Boyle argues that more and more of material that used to be free to use without having to pay a fee or ask permission is becoming private property — at the expense of innovation, science, culture and politics.

Details, including specs and a link to some great source material for imagery, are available at the Worth1000 website. Both the book and the cover will be distributed under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license.

Boyle is a great writer and enjoys exploring legal questions surrounding property in a way which makes it accessible and interesting to the reader. His book Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society was a real eye opener for me. I am definitely going to get his new book.

When my PhD was almost finished I announced a similar competition for the design of the book cover and was lucky to get it widely publicized. The whole idea of the competition was actually quite resented and discussed on my blog. Professional designers felt I was cutting them out of the market by asking for free work. Interesting discussions ensued. The results of the competition were posted on my blog and the winner was chosen by popular vote and used on the cover of my PhD.

Posted on by mklang

What is the lecture?

No one can tell you what the lecture is… sorry for the silly Matrix reference. The question here is on the issue of property and the lecture. The questions I hope to address are Who owns the lecture? Who controls the lecture? Who owns the lecture notes? What can the audience do? Who owns the audiences’ notes?

Some early background: In November 2006 I wrote the post Do you hand out your handouts which was concerned with students demanding (not asking) to have handouts in advance. This is also part of a larger issue of the impact of becoming dependent on technology in teaching (see post Teaching with powerpoint).

What triggered these reflections was the news that University of Florida professor Michael Moulton was claiming the right to prevent his students from selling their lecture notes. His claim was based upon the concept that the students notes were actually derivative works from his own notes and therefore the lecturer could use copyright to prevent the students from selling their notes. This is the basic story read more details at Wired.

Standing and talking i.e. giving a lecture is not copyrightable per se, this is actually a good thing as most lectures tend to be the explanation of the works of many others (not all mentioned). A lecture on basic copyright law will include ideas and direct quotes from the law, courts and often other jurists. The nature of the lecture is to educate the audience on a certain issue and therefore cannot be only the ideas and opinions of the lecturer. This use of the ideas and texts of others is neither copyright infringement or plagiarism.

The lecture becomes copyrightable when it is a derivative work of the lecture notes. In other words a lecture given without notes is not copyrightable, nor is a lecture given from notes taken from the public domain. If the non-copyrightable lecture is filmed or recorded then the copyright goes to the person recording (the director).

The “right” of the lecturer to refuse the audience to record is actually not a question of copyright but more a question of labor law. For example, if I were to refuse to let my students record me the question would be one of my refusal to carry out my job as a lecturer. The ensuing discussion between my employer and me would be a re-negotiation of my contract to take into account the audiences’ desire to record my work. Many lecturers I have spoken to are not aware of this position and some react very strongly to being recorded while they work. The audience taking notes is a developed fair use but again the lecturer could theoretically refuse to talk if someone were holding a pen (as with a recording device) but it is doubtful that the academic employer would support this position.

What can the audience do with their notes or recordings? If we presume that the lecture is based upon the copyrightable notes of the lecturer (as opposed to an ad hoc talk or a folk dance following a traditional pattern i.e. uncopyrightable) then any kind of reproduction of the notes/recording would be a violation of the copyright of the lecturer. The audience can however sell their copies or make copies for their friends within the limits of fair use but this would not allow them to make several copies or post the notes/recording on the Internet.

Therefore the lecture is a collection of rights and it intersects with different legal areas. Beyond that it is also a specific situation based upon the traditions and expectations of the audience and lecturer. The lecturer seems to have more power since he/she has chosen the subject, scheduled the event and does all the talking  but this is not necessarily the case. The lecture is a socially constructed affair which requires audience participation in specific forms (coming on time, sitting properly, silence, attention etc)

On top of all this comes the control via labor law and contracts. Wow, who said that giving a lecture was easy?

Posted on by mklang

Demanding 1,6 million

According to the local free newspaper the record companies suing the  people behind The Pirate Bay are demanding 1 621 045 euro in damages – thats a lot of money.

Posted on by mklang

What is art? Confusion in copyright

In many forum discussions the acronym ianal (I am not a lawyer) is used to denote that the writer is not a lawyer. In all fairness then I should begin this article by adding ianaa – I am not an artist. My interest in the definition of what is, can and should be art come mainly from my work in the field of copyright – even though I have an amateur interest in art.

When I first attempted to approach the question of art in 2003 I was naïve enough to think that there was a simple answer to be found and that it was just a question of locating it. Boy was I wrong. The only thing that I have found to be common to a definition of art at large and art in copyright is that it must have an expressive element.

Most often the artist must intend a work to be art for it to be considered art. But this is not always necessary. In some cases the viewers of the work may raise an aesthetic expression to the status of art despite their being no intention from the creator.

The utilitarian object: A dustpan in my house is not art. A dustpan hanging in the cleaning closet at the museum of modern art is not art. A dustpan hanging on the wall displayed among exhibits of the museum of modern art is art. The creator of the dustpan did not have the intention of creating art however the artist may use this everyday object as a piece of art and display it as art in order to create an aesthetic expression.

In 2004 a survey among 500 art experts chose Marcel Duchamp’s urinal to be the most influential modern art work of all time. The creator of the urinal does not have copyright in it – although he or she may have protection for its design but this protection can only be awarded for the elements of the design that are not their for solely functional use.

urinal2.jpg urinal.jpg

Left image of Duchamp’s urinal 1917 photo: Readymade by GriXx (CC by-nc-nd), Right image photo Urinal by Eatmorechips (CC by-nc-nd)

Copyright law is in trouble here since the object cannot be protected as it is and yet it is possible to protect the work via copyright. The photo’s here are the copyright of the photographers. The Duchamp urinal is made specific via his signature and making copies of it are limited since the rights to the work belong to the copyright holder.

Unintentional art: In an recent post about snowmen and copyright I discussed how a snowmen scene (two snowmen pushing and pulling a large wheel over a third snow figure lying in front of the wheel) could be seen as art even if it may not have been the intention of the creators to create anything beyond their own amusement. The creator may, for many reasons, not be intending to create art but the world at large may appreciate the results and classify the work as art. In this case the expression is awarded the full protection of copyright law despite the lack of author intention.

Koko is a lowland gorilla with a sign language vocabulary of 1000 words. Koko has also painted many pictures which have been sold in art auctions.


Bird Red Slice (abstract) by Koko (acrylic on canvas) 1984

The problem with copyright in unintentional art is interesting but it is made even more so by Koko. First, does copyright have a requirement of intent in the expression of art? Here the answer should be no. Second, and more specific to unintentional animal art (Koko is not alone) can animals be authors as understood by copyright law? There does not seem to be a formal requirement to be human in the law but I have been unable to find a non-human copyright holder.

 

The problem is that this is not the way in which art is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica (login required): “…the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others…” since this definition seems to require the intent of the creator.

Art and copyright are complicated subjects and I think that the only way to end this quote is with a Monty Python classic sketch with the pope discussing art with Michelangelo which ends with a comment by the pope (played by John Cleese): Look! I’m the bloody pope, I am! May not know much about art, but I know what I like!

Posted on by mklang

Function creep and systems abuse

In recent news a US pilot accidentally shot his gun in the cockpit of the plane. Since 9/11 pilots have been given guns to increase safety and this is the first time a gun from this program has been discharged (ABC News). Using this as an example Obsessed writes a very clear argument about the flaws inherent in arming pilots.

We can assume that a trained pilot, when facing piloty thingies, will act like a trained pilot. WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT A TRAINED PILOT WILL ACT LIKE A TRAINED LION-TAMER WHEN FACING A WILD LION.

The example also shows that once installed, any social or technical system has the potential to fail. All the right intentions were present in the arguments to supply pilots with guns and, I will venture a guess that the pilot really regrets the incident. Despite all these regrets and good intentions the pilot is to blame for the shot and will most probably be seriously punished.

But what about those who advocated and argued for the system itself? They will most probably be able to swear themselves free from legal, social and moral responsibility by blaming all the results on the pilot. This is not an untypical response from those who create and regulate systems. But it is also a way of shirking responsibility. Those who create and regulate systems must become more aware of the effects of their decisions and not be allowed to hide behind good intentions. The side effects enabled by the system – in this case the gun being shot at the wrong time – must be factored into the decision.

This is not the same as requiring that systems builders prepare for every impossible situation but only that they be required to take into account the added risks entailed by system abuse. Stated simply, the pilot would not have been able to discharge a gun in the cockpit if there was no gun in the cockpit.

Posted on by mklang

Spying violates privacy

The BBC online report that the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe have found that cyber spying violates individuals’ right to privacy and could be used only in exceptional cases.

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has rejected provisions adopted by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia that allowed investigators to covertly search PCs online. In its ruling, the court creates a new right to confidentiality and integrity of personal data stored on IT systems; the ruling expands the current protection provided by the country’s constitutional rights for telecommunications privacy and the personal right to control private information under the German constitution.In line with an earlier ruling on censuses, the judges found that the modern digital world requires a new right, but not one which is absolute ­ exceptions can be made if there is just cause. The judges did not feel that the blanket covert online searches that North Rhine-Westphalia’s (NRW) provisions allowed fell under that category; rather, these searches were found to be a severe violation of privacy.

The court explained that strict legal provisions apply for covert online searches of PCs, as with exceptional cases of telephone tapping or other exceptions to the right to privacy. Specifically, the judges say that private PCs can only be covertly searched “if there is evidence that an important overriding right would otherwise be violated.” (via Heise Online).

Here is the ruling in German.

Posted on by mklang